There is no consensus on how to name the phenomenon of learning to teach in a university context, and like others before us (Stes and van Petegem, 2011a; Amundsen and Wilson, 2012; Saroyan and Trigwell, 2015), we note a variety of terminologies to refer to it, both in English and in French. Among the terms most frequently used in English are faculty development, academic development, educational development, instructional development, professional development, continuing professional development, professional learning and professional growth. While several terms are used synonymously by authors (Amundsen and Wilson, 2012; Mårtensson, 2014), others distinguish between the terms (Frenay et al., 2011; Stes and van Petegem, 2011a; Demougeot-Lebel and Lison, 2022). Some even go so far as to say that professional development and its translation in French (développement professionnel) do not quite refer to the same thing (Demougeot-Lebel and Lison, 2022), or add new synonyms by saying, for example, that “the terms faculty development and Scholarship of Teaching and Learning are interchangeable” (Bridges, 2012, p. 3). This lack of definition greatly contributes to the confusion and makes consensus difficult.

There seems to be a more perceptible distinction whether the term is “development” or “learning.” On the one hand, it seems that the term “development” can be confusing and lends itself to a variety of interpretations. It is likely to be interpreted as an insufficiency, or as a gap to be filled (Nicholls, 2005; van Schalkwyk et al., 2015), where gaps are usually determined by external mechanisms such as standards or administrators (Nicholls, 2005). As a result, the use of the term “development” may encounter resistance on the ground (Thomas et al., 2011). However, in her study of variations in the meanings given to the development by university teachers, Åkerlind (2003) shows that the subjects interviewed tended to perceive development as the growth of something. It would be therefore essentially a question of perspective, between a gap to be filled or a gain to be achieved. On the other hand, the definitions given to development (professional, pedagogical, etc.) tend to adopt an institutional point of view, meaning that the focus is more on the activities and resources offered to support teachers in improving their teaching practice and/or student learning (King, 2004; Steinert et al., 2006; Bridges, 2012; Mårtensson, 2014; Taylor and Znajda, 2015). By directing attention to the supply aspect of the equation, important parameters of the developmental process are overlooked, such as the value of experience, reflection, interaction, and feedback, as well as the influence of contexts, professional identity, and personal agency throughout this process. Following this, many researchers prefer “not to use the term “development” [...] so as not to undermine the role and agency of academics in the development process” (Saroyan and Trigwell, 2015, p. 93). While some definitions that use the notion of development still consider the individual perspective (e.g., Nevgi and Löfström, 2015; Demougeot-Lebel and Lison, 2022), many will instead use the concept of professional learning (Knight et al., 2006; Webster-Wright, 2009; Saroyan and Trigwell, 2015; van Schalkwyk et al., 2015; Ambler et al., 2020), taking greater account of the interactions between structural and individual dimensions. Thus, we identify a tendency to position teachers as learners in a given context, and in this perspective, some studies mobilize conceptual frameworks related to learning, and more specifically to theories related to adult learning (Bridges, 2012; Gayle et al., 2013; Phillipson et al., 2018; Tinnell et al., 2019).

More generally, it appears that the notions used to designate the learning process in higher education are poorly defined and conceptualized in the scholarly work in our sample. Educational development and related terms are therefore frequently used in a common-sense perspective, with no specific theoretical underpinnings. When concepts are defined, the foundations of the proposed definitions appear to be weak and tend to be based mainly on the authors' personal reflections. Research by Åkerlind (2003) stands out for having empirically probed the meanings attributed to growth and development by university teachers (perceived as a gain). As indicated by Webster-Wright (2009), a study conducted by Friedman and Phillips (2004), who also investigated definitions attributed to continuing professional development among practicing professionals, revealed three categories of perceived meanings: (1) updating, (2) training, and (3) from an institutional point of view, regulating and structuring the profession. Such variation in meanings given to educational development, along with its growing popularity both in practice and research, raises the question of its purposes in the university context.

Many of the definitions presented in the articles identify teaching improvement as the goal of educational development, ultimately leading to improving student learning (Weurlander and Stenfors-Hayes, 2008; Sutherland, 2018). This argument greatly limits the scope for debate, and the question it raises is why these improvements are now considered a “necessity” (Saroyan and Trigwell, 2015). The justifications found in this sense are at cultural, contextual, pedagogical and individual levels, allowing us to identify external and internal forces that shape the aims of educational development.

First, the need for educational development is largely justified by the contextual and cultural changes in which academic institutions are evolving, and which are having an impact on academic cultures. Neoliberal logic and the application of New Public Management principles are pointed by many to explain the changes universities are undergoing (Ylijoki and Henriksson, 2017; McCune, 2019; Laiho et al., 2020). These external forces weighing on universities inevitably generate cultural changes within academic institutions. As Leibowitz (2014) points out “the focus and purpose of academic development is influenced, if not determined, by the policy and cultural environment in which it functions” (p. 358). This can be seen, for example, in economic pressures and constraints (Ferman, 2002; Åkerlind, 2005), a climate of competitiveness (Ylijoki and Ursin, 2013; McCune, 2019; Kálmán et al., 2020), the increasing influence of governing bodies and the market in university institutional policies (Mathieson, 2011; Skelton, 2012) and by increased accountability of academic and institutional performance (Åkerlind, 2005; Smith, 2017). This frames what is expected of higher education, namely quality education designed to prepare competent students for a competitive workplace (Skelton, 2012; Laiho et al., 2020). In this perspective, researchers are observing a rise in standards linked to the quality of teaching (Ferman, 2002; Shaw, 2018) as well as a desire to professionalize higher education (Lueddeke, 2003; Skelton, 2012; Austin and Sorcinelli, 2013; Albero, 2015; Bailly et al., 2015; Shaw, 2018; Ödalen et al., 2019), justified in particular by a lack of initial teacher training (Ferman, 2002; Amundsen and Wilson, 2012; Leibowitz, 2014) and a lack of preparation for teaching (Steinert et al., 2006; Demougeot-Lebel and Perret, 2011a; Taylor and Znajda, 2015; Ménard et al., 2020). We also note that educational development can be presented as a political injunction, particularly in articles from the UK (King, 2004; Nicholls, 2005; Knight et al., 2006; Pickering, 2006). Following this, educational development can be encouraged with the aim of supporting institutional change in higher education toward a particular worldview (Steinert et al., 2006; O'Sullivan and Irby, 2011; McQuiggan, 2012; Austin and Sorcinelli, 2013).

In addition to the massification of higher education (Ferman, 2002; Austin and Sorcinelli, 2013) and technological advances (Gautreau, 2011; McQuiggan, 2012) that generate pressure on university teachers, pedagogical arguments are also raised to legitimize the need for educational development. Among the desired pedagogical changes, we find the adoption of a student-centered approach (Åkerlind, 2007; Skelton, 2012; Jääskelä et al., 2017), active methods (Phillipson et al., 2018; Vermote et al., 2020), evidence-based teaching practices (Webster-Wright, 2009; Gibbs, 2013; Tinnell et al., 2019) and a scholarly approach to teaching (Roxå and Mårtensson, 2009; Thomas et al., 2011). The adoption of a student-centered approach appears to be the most frequently studied desired change, particularly in relation to the effects of teacher training. To achieve this, many studies have used the Approaches to Teaching Inventory (ATI) questionnaire developed by Prosser and Trigwell (1999) (e.g., Lueddeke, 2003; Gibbs and Coffrey, 2004; Norton et al., 2005; Lindblom-Ylänne et al., 2006; Postareff et al., 2007; Hanbury et al., 2008; Light et al., 2009; McKenna et al., 2009; Stes and van Petegem, 2011b; Lameul et al., 2014; Nevgi and Löfström, 2015; Taylor and Znajda, 2015; Ödalen et al., 2019).

Finally, on an individual level, continuous learning is generally expected across all professions (Webster-Wright, 2009), and university teachers generally see it as a responsibility (van Schalkwyk et al., 2015). From this perspective, Ambler et al. (2020) conclude that “professional learning is intrinsic to being an academic” (p. 845). The motivations underlying university teachers' professional learning may differ from one individual to another. In fact, Åkerlind (2005) has identified six different motivations that may be sought when university academics consciously engage in such a process: (1) becoming more productive and efficient; (2) achieving academic credibility and recognition; (3) ongoing improvements in the quality and effectiveness; (4) ongoing accumulation of personal knowledge and skills; (5) increasing depth and sophistication of understanding in the field; and (6) contributing to disciplinary growth or social change. We also note various areas in which teachers might want to evolve, namely the acquisition of comfort and confidence in teaching, followed by mastery of teaching and learning content, teaching materials and/or teaching strategies, and student learning (Åkerlind, 2003; Gayle et al., 2013; Korhonen and Törmä, 2016). Kugel (1993) established a close relationship between these areas of development and the experience of university teachers, presenting a rather linear process that evolves with experience. Insofar as individuals are experts in the discipline being taught and begin their careers as novice teachers (Pickering, 2006), the development of teaching confidence is thus frequently associated with novice teachers (Sadler, 2013; Mahon et al., 2022). This area of development can also be seen as a prerequisite for the development of pedagogical skills (Sadler, 2013). However, Gayle et al. (2013) suggest that this is more of a circular process, linked to variations in teaching experience (Åkerlind, 2003). Indeed, the introduction of something new (content, practice, context) is likely to generate uncertainty and lead to a loss of confidence among teachers (McNaughton and Billot, 2016), showing that this sense of discomfort is not exclusive to novices and can punctuate the career path.

Because the educational development of university teachers is highly contextualized (Nicholls, 2005; Austin and Sorcinelli, 2013; Taylor and Znajda, 2015; Laiho et al., 2020), institutional culture, practices and norms emerge as an important factor in the process. Conflicting expectations between research and teaching are often raised as a barrier to educational development (King, 2004; Nicholls, 2005; Light et al., 2009; Stes and van Petegem, 2011a; Rege Colet and Berthiaume, 2012). Since research enjoys a high profile, particularly in terms of institutional influence and professional recognition (Light et al., 2009; McCune, 2019), teachers may be inclined to focus their efforts on research rather than teaching considering that excellent teaching “would not lead to promotion or tenure” (Sutherland, 2017, p. 14). Thus, valuing teaching and supporting teaching improvement within an institution is likely to stimulate teachers' engagement in teaching (Gibbs and Coffrey, 2004; Hanbury et al., 2008; Stes and van Petegem, 2011a; Jääskelä et al., 2017; van Lankveld et al., 2017). Valuing teaching in institutional policies is therefore seen as a facilitating condition. Consequently, a culture of support and recognition of teaching, as well as the allocation of time and resources to teachers' educational development holds great importance (King, 2004; Mårtensson, 2014; Taylor and Znajda, 2015; van Schalkwyk et al., 2015; Jääskelä et al., 2017; Kálmán et al., 2020).

The development of teacher identity would contribute significantly to learning to teach (Warhurst, 2006; McAlpine et al., 2014), as would agentivity (Skelton, 2012), that is “how [they] construct themselves as active subjects” (Nevgi and Löfström, 2015, p. 54). In this sense, agency, commitment, and motivation to evolve in one's role as a teacher would play a decisive role in educational development (McKenna et al., 2009; Mårtensson et al., 2011; McQuiggan, 2012; Gayle et al., 2013), and significant resistance can arise when there are insufficient reasons to motivate teaching improvement (Gayle et al., 2013). For example, some may not have aspired to teach (Nevgi and Löfström, 2015; Ylijoki and Henriksson, 2017) and in this case the desire to improve as a teacher may not be a priority. Motivations for change in the teaching role can be external, interpersonal, or personal in nature (Knight et al., 2006). In terms of motivations external to the individual, we find factors related to working conditions and context, such as salary, reward systems, career advancement, promotions, opportunities, policy compliance, etc. (Nicholls, 2005; Knight et al., 2006; Gautreau, 2011; Sutherland, 2017). Regarding interpersonal motivations, these essentially involve exchanging and sharing experiences with other colleagues, and sowing interest in issues related to teaching and learning (Knight et al., 2006; Taylor and Znajda, 2015). Interactions with students are also important for stimulating personal motivation to improve (Pickering, 2006; Trede et al., 2012; Korhonen and Törmä, 2016; McNaughton and Billot, 2016; van Lankveld et al., 2017; Walder, 2017; Laiho et al., 2020) or constraining it, by having passive behaviors, for example (Stes and van Petegem, 2011a; Thomas et al., 2011). As for personal motivations, they are closely correlated with personal interests in teaching (curiosity, passion, etc.), personal values (Kreber, 2010; Remmik et al., 2011; Lameul et al., 2014; Warr Pedersen, 2017; McCune, 2019) and felt needs in relation to teaching and learning (Knight et al., 2006; McAlpine et al., 2009; Gayle et al., 2013; Kiffer, 2016; Thomas et al., 2016). For many, it is thus preferable that the supply of activities supporting educational development be consistent with these needs to stimulate teacher motivation and ultimately, learning (Nicholls, 2005; Gautreau, 2011; Saroyan and Trigwell, 2015; Taylor and Znajda, 2015).

In addition to being consistent with perceived needs, volition also emerges as a significant condition for professional learning and the evolution of teaching practices (Knight and Trowler, 2000; Trowler and Cooper, 2002; Mälkki and Lindblom-Ylänne, 2012; Gayle et al., 2013; Saroyan and Trigwell, 2015; Jääskelä et al., 2017; McGrath, 2017; Tinnell et al., 2019). Although educational development modalities can be informal or formal and learning may be intentional or unintentional (Knight et al., 2006), when modalities are imposed, various consequences are likely to arise. According to Knight and Trowler (2000), imposition accentuates the risk of establishing a culture of conformity, in stark contrast to the culture of academic freedom (Jääskelä et al., 2017). Consequently, imposed educational development modalities can give rise to negative feelings in individuals (Knight and Trowler, 2000), decrease their motivation (Mälkki and Lindblom-Ylänne, 2012) and constrain changes in pedagogical practices (Mälkki and Lindblom-Ylänne, 2012; Jääskelä et al., 2017; McGrath, 2017; Tinnell et al., 2019; Kálmán et al., 2020). Moreover, it is generally accepted that initiatives that take place over time are more likely to have a significant impact (Stes et al., 2010; Saroyan and Trigwell, 2015; Ménard et al., 2020). Little research has focused on the long-term effects of educational development activities for university teachers. However, Tinnell et al. (2019) observe that it is common for the effects of an initiative to fade at the end of an educational development experience, although some acquired strategies persist over time.

The act of teaching is generally connected to the emergence of needs. In this sense, the role of action in learning to teach holds significance (Phillipson et al., 2018). Some researchers also note that teaching experience often precedes the need to develop (Åkerlind, 2003; Korhonen and Törmä, 2016), and that this practical experience would facilitate the integration of new learning (Ödalen et al., 2019). Moreover, introducing changes to teaching practices and challenging comfort and inertia would in itself be generators of learning (McAlpine et al., 2009; Amundsen and Wilson, 2012). In this regard, it is interesting to note that experimenting with new teaching methods is the most frequent development activity among university teachers interviewed in the study by Kálmán et al. (2020). Critical incidents are also frequently evoked as triggers for professional learning. Critical incidents (Knight et al., 2006; Bridges, 2012; Wagenheim, 2014) could be defined by a destabilizing moment in the action, such as a confronting situation with students (Trautwein, 2018), which disrupts existing beliefs (Pickering, 2006) and triggers various emotions (Gobeil-Proulx et al., 2018). The role of discomfort (Trede et al., 2012) and the emotions experienced as a result of action would therefore have a non-negligible role in educational development (Sadler, 2013; Wagenheim, 2014).

The value of reflection about and during action for professional learning is widely recognized (Mälkki and Lindblom-Ylänne, 2012; Wagenheim, 2014; Nevgi and Löfström, 2015; Saroyan and Trigwell, 2015). In doing so, the deployment of reflexive processes is crucial for making sense of experiences, facilitating learning, and evolving within the profession (McQuiggan, 2012; Wagenheim, 2014). However, it is important to recognize that reflection can be influenced by teachers' social and professional contexts, and thus orient the process toward existing norms and expectations. In this vein, in addition to a willingness to look critically at one's own teaching, the adoption of a critical attitude toward the teaching traditions of one's faculty or discipline is an important condition for critical reflection (Kreber, 2010; Nevgi and Löfström, 2015), as is the presence of spaces and opportunities that enable it to take place (Mathieson, 2011). While some discuss self-reflection (Phillipson et al., 2018), which can notably be supported through reflective journaling (McQuiggan, 2012; Nevgi and Löfström, 2015) or by engaging in a SoTL process (Bridges, 2012; Gayle et al., 2013), reflection would be deeper when facilitated by a peer (Mårtensson, 2014). More specifically, dialogue and collaborative reflection are said to be powerful (McKenna et al., 2009) as they enable different points of view to be shared, thereby fostering awareness and prompting questioning of the implicit conceptions that influence action (Mathieson, 2011). Critical reflection, engaged with peers and informed by theories of teaching and learning, is more likely to lead to reconceptualization and transformation of practices (Warhurst, 2006).

As well as being conducive to reflection, several studies show the contribution of interactions and collaboration in bringing about effective changes in the teaching practices of university teachers (Knight and Trowler, 2000; Ferman, 2002; Mathieson, 2011; Trede et al., 2012). In this regard, conversations with colleagues, whether they occur as part of a formal activity or spontaneously, have been identified as important in the educational development process (King, 2004; Knight et al., 2006; Roxå and Mårtensson, 2009; Bridges, 2012; Thomson, 2013; Thomson and Trigwell, 2018; Tinnell et al., 2019; Kálmán et al., 2020; Ménard et al., 2020). The autonomy at the source of these exchanges would serve as a strong incentive, whether in selecting colleagues for discussions, determining topics, choosing locations, deciding on the timing, and setting the duration of conversations place (Thomson and Trigwell, 2018). Increased opportunities to meet with colleagues is likely to foster educational development (van Lankveld et al., 2017), in addition to reducing the loneliness and isolation sometimes associated with the role of university teacher (Gayle et al., 2013; van Waes et al., 2015). However, power imbalances between colleagues can be a barrier to collegial relationships (Warhurst, 2006; van Waes et al., 2015), and particularly between novices and experienced teachers. Conversely, it appears that the development of relationships and the establishment of trust over time contribute to reducing power dynamics within those relationships. Value conflicts and lack of consensus can also have a negative impact on these relationships (Stes and van Petegem, 2011a; McNaughton and Billot, 2016). Ultimately, an institutional culture that encourages and promotes individual merit and reward systems can erode collegiality, underscoring the importance of fostering supportive and collaborative professional cultures (van Waes et al., 2015; Kálmán et al., 2020).

Finally, feedback is identified as a tool of choice to support the educational development of university teachers (Knol et al., 2013). Because of a prevailing solitary teaching culture, feedback from peers appears to occur less frequently (Taylor and Znajda, 2015; Korhonen and Törmä, 2016). Nevertheless, peer feedback is said to have great formative potential, particularly for identifying strengths and weaknesses and supporting reflection on one's practices (Gobeil-Proulx et al., 2018). As students are the primary beneficiaries of the teaching experience, student feedback tends to be the most common form of feedback. According to Korhonen and Törmä (2016), student feedback is likely to support the development of self-awareness in teaching and inspire new ideas. Most universities use student feedback questionnaires to provide feedback to teachers. Nevertheless, these questionnaires are intended to aid in the educational development of teachers but also to monitor and assess teaching performance which may factor into decisions regarding tenure, contract renewal, and promotions (Kember et al., 2002). From this perspective, the purposes of this tool can become muddled, with potential confusion between its role in control and its role in development (Rege Colet and Berthiaume, 2012), thereby limiting its impact on educational development (Kember et al., 2002).

Various variables were studied in relation to the educational development of university teachers. Experience and disciplinary affiliation were the most significant variables. Variables such as status, gender, and generation (or age) were much less significant but there are several indications that suggest these might be worth considering, particularly concerning the status of the teacher. Indeed, the significance of the status might be especially noteworthy considering the changing landscape of higher education. Like Dawson et al. (2019), we observe that there are more and more teaching-only positions and contract teachers being hired to teach university courses. While Dawson et al. (2019) show that perceptions of the institution's teaching culture vary according to status, others observe how obtaining a tenured position greatly influences the development of a teaching identity (Nevgi and Löfström, 2015; Korhonen and Törmä, 2016), among other things “because of the lack of professional learning experiences provided to sessional staff” (Warr Pedersen, 2017, p. 689). Moreover, tenure-track faculty are more involved in decision-making processes than their contractual colleagues (Dawson et al., 2019), so it is more likely that the latter's needs and preferences are ignored.

As for the effect of gender, a study exploring the career development of new academics by Ylijoki and Henriksson (2017) shows that the difficulty of balancing teaching and research, where teaching takes up a significant proportion of working time, hindering career advancement, was experienced exclusively by women in the sample. Regarding teaching methods, Norton et al. (2005) observed that women were more oriented toward facilitating learning and men toward transmitting knowledge. Concerning the methods used by teachers for developing their pedagogical skills, Kiffer (2016) shows that men and women in the same discipline may not necessarily have the same preferences. For example, women in the science and technology discipline would have greater recourse to self-teaching, while men belonging to the same discipline would favor learning by observation-imitation. In a similar vein, Kálmán et al. (2020) point out that male teachers in the natural sciences are more reluctant to engage in professional development. As for the generational variable, so-called the Y generation, a study conducted by Demougeot-Lebel (2014) shows that generational affiliation has very little effect on pedagogical practices while, in his study, Kiffer (2018) hypothesizes the influence of this variable in explaining the tendency of novice teachers to adopt autonomous development modalities.

The influence of university teachers' experience has been further studied and emerges as an important variable to consider in the educational development process. Depending on the different phases of their career, the needs, challenges encountered, and above all, the meaning given to different aspects of their work may vary (Thomson and Trigwell, 2018). According to Demougeot-Lebel and Perret (2011b), however, despite experience, each individual articulates a range of diverse needs associated with the desire to gain a better understanding of students, to foster easier interactions with them or to overcome a certain sense of discomfort. Some studies have specifically selected their participants based on their experience in university teaching (e.g., Nicholls, 2005; Stes and van Petegem, 2011a; Wagenheim, 2014; Bailly et al., 2015; Kiffer, 2016; McCune, 2019; Mahon et al., 2022), while in other studies, it was considered as an independent variable (e.g., Lueddeke, 2003; Mälkki and Lindblom-Ylänne, 2012; Korhonen and Törmä, 2016; Ödalen et al., 2019; Kálmán et al., 2020). Among studies focusing on a specific level of experience, we find that new teachers attract more attention than experienced teachers. This is primarily because the former are inexperienced in the profession, and that training is frequently provided for them to enhance their skills in the profession. While studies on the effects of teacher training activities may not extensively address teacher experience, it is worth noting that these activities are primarily designed for new teachers (Pickering, 2006; Ödalen et al., 2019). Note that there seems to be no consensus on the number of years of experience that determines what a novice teacher refers to: <7 years (Stes and van Petegem, 2011b; van Waes et al., 2015), <5 years (Simmons, 2011; Thomas et al., 2011; Wagenheim, 2014), <4 years (Kiffer, 2016), <3 years (Norton et al., 2005; Ménard et al., 2020), <2 years (Warhurst, 2006). As for Bailly et al. (2015), novice teachers are not determined by the number of years of experience.

Studies that have focused on novice teachers have therefore often sought to determine the effects of training provided, and particularly on the evolution of conceptions likely to operate within the framework of such training (Gibbs and Coffrey, 2004; Light et al., 2009; Demougeot-Lebel and Perret, 2010; Stes and van Petegem, 2011a; Bailly et al., 2015; Taylor and Znajda, 2015; Ménard et al., 2020), and to a lesser extent, on the development of a sense of comfort in teaching (Sadler, 2013; Mahon et al., 2022). Researchers have put forward a variety of explanations as to why teachers differ according to their teaching experience. The social context of higher education is particularly important to consider in relation to new teachers, given that this is a new professional environment and social practice for them, involving new roles to adopt (Simmons, 2011; Trautwein, 2018). In so doing, isolation and insecurity may be greater at this stage of the career (Remmik et al., 2011; Simmons, 2011; Taylor and Znajda, 2015). The anxiety felt at the start of a career could be caused by the gap between what new teachers feel they can do, what they should be able to do and how they wish to develop (Nicholls, 2005; Remmik et al., 2011). In addition, the diversity of roles (Remmik et al., 2011; Thomas et al., 2011) and the fragmentation of identity observed in novices (Simmons, 2011) can present further challenges. In this way, new teachers' participation in teacher training would facilitate their entry into professional life, notably by expanding their networks and acquiring a broader understanding of teaching (Remmik et al., 2011; Mahon et al., 2022). As for early-career teachers' relationship with institutional culture, Knight and Trowler (2000) note that novice teachers are more likely to be sensitive to recurrent values, attitudes, and practices than their more experienced colleagues, for whom these elements are taken for granted. For their part, Kálmán et al. (2020) found that university lecturers with less teaching experience and in fixed-term positions were more or less aware of their institution's professional culture.

Since a university teacher is first and foremost an expert in his or her discipline, this is the starting point for developing pedagogical skills and a teacher identity (Nicholls, 2005; Pickering, 2006; Winberg, 2008; Remmik et al., 2011; Amundsen and Wilson, 2012; Trede et al., 2012; Gayle et al., 2013; Korhonen and Törmä, 2016). In this way, disciplinary affiliation emerges as a determining variable in educational development. Firstly, it is likely to influence motivation to teach. In research by Nicholls (2005), a considerably larger proportion of new teachers in the natural sciences perceived teaching as a necessity rather than a voluntary choice. Secondly, the nature of disciplinary knowledge, like the culture associated with it, would influence teaching methods and the type of pedagogical innovations experienced by teachers (Trowler and Cooper, 2002; Norton et al., 2005; Pickering, 2006; Kreber, 2010; Mälkki and Lindblom-Ylänne, 2012; Walder, 2017), but also the educational development practices favored by them (Kiffer, 2016). Teachers familiar with methodologies from the social sciences may find it easier to engage in development projects that align with a pedagogical research approach, such as SoTL, compared to their counterparts in the natural sciences (Kálmán et al., 2020). Furthermore, except for Ménard et al. (2020) who reported no significant variation, many studies recognize disciplinary affiliation as a factor influencing teachers' conceptions of teaching and learning (Lueddeke, 2003; Lindblom-Ylänne et al., 2006; Demougeot-Lebel and Perret, 2010; Kálmán et al., 2020). Teachers belonging to the natural sciences tend to be more focused on content transmission and teaching, whereas those in the humanities tend to focus more on fostering active student learning (Wegner and Nückles, 2015). In view of the specificities that emerge according to disciplinary affiliation, it is suggested that disciplinary diversity within educational development activities would enhance learning opportunities and broaden teachers' pedagogical practices (King, 2004; Warhurst, 2006; Remmik et al., 2011; Taylor and Znajda, 2015; van Lankveld et al., 2017). Winberg (2008) suggests that to strengthen interdisciplinary collaboration, individuals must recognize the complexity of their different ways of knowing and remain open to the potential of both generic and discipline-specific forms of teaching and learning.